The “Washington Post” May Cut Its Ombudsman Position

Patrick Pexton might be theWashington Post’s last ombudsman. His two-year contract expires March 1, and thePost might not replace him with a full-time, full-throated, internal watchdog.

“We are in the process of thinking about whether we want to replace Pat with no changes
in the role or do it differently,” editorial page editorFred Hiatt wrote in an e-mail. “We have not made any decisions.”

If thePost decides to spike the ombudsman, it would extinguish a role that has been filled by
distinguished journalists since 1970, whenRichard Harwood became the paper’s first internal critic. And it would land a heavy blow to the position
of news ombudsmen in general, an institution under siege.

“For theWashington Post to downsize, restructure or eliminate the ombudsman position makes it easier for others
to do the same,” Pexton tellsThe Washingtonian. “There are not many left.”

It’s hard to get an exact count of ombudsmen in US news organizations. I count more
than 20, including the public editor at theNew York Times; ombudsmen at theChicago Tribune, ESPN, and theMiami Herald, among others; and a standards editor at CNN and theHuffington Post. Many major news organizations are divesting ombudsmen. Revenues are scarce, so it’s
not surprising publishers would see the position as a luxury.

“TheWashington Post is a place where having an ombudsman is part of the culture,” saysMichael Getler, a veteranPost reporter and editor who served as ombudsman from 2000 to 2005. He’s now ombudsman
at PBS. “It sets the standard for what an ombudsman does.”

“I’m not sure an ombudsman focused as heavily as they have been on a weekly column
makes sense any longer,” says Hiatt, whose editorial pages have hosted thePost’s ombudsmen for the past 43 years. “I think it is still important to have some way
for readers/viewers to register complaints and/or ask questions and be assured of
getting a response.

“Beyond that,” he adds, “I am still thinking and talking to people about what makes
sense.”

WhenThe Washingtonian put the question to Baron, he responded: “As you know, there are many commentators
who weigh in with their views of our performance as a news organization. Our primary
concern as we think about this is assuring that reader questions and complaints are
addressed.”

Addressing complaints and comments from readers is the most basic definition of an
ombudsman. At their best, they often explore and expose journalistic flaws in coverage,
the handling of plagiarism, and instances of conflicts of interest. When thePost in 2009 floated the idea of charging lobbyists to attend salons where they could
mix with journalists, then-ombudsmanAndy Alexander called it “an ethical lapse of monumental proportions.” That stung.

“Anyone who cuts an ombudsman is making a mistake.” saysGetler. “It’s a disservice to the paper in upholding its own journalistic standards. It’s
important, especially now, for newspapers not to slip in quality.”

Margaret Sullivan, who recently took over asNew York Times public editor, explained in her Sunday column how theTimes established her position afterJayson Blair was exposed as a fabricator a decade ago. “TheTimes took many preventive steps, including creating the job of public editor,” she wrote.
“That shows a continuing commitment to hearing criticism and enduring second-guessing
in public—not a small thing.”

But perhaps too large for the Washington Post.

NOTE: A previous version of this story quoted Jeffrey Dvorkin, executive editor of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, accusing Baron of firing the last ombudsman at the Boston Globe. That is not accurate. In fact, the ombudsman left the job to become a spokesperson for Deval Patrick, during his first campaign for governor. The Globe publisher did not replace him.

Get Washingtonian’s Daily DC Updates (Not Just Another Political News Roundup)